SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO.
156 Hazards XXII
INTRODUCTION TO HSE BENCHMARKING
A. Kay, Hydroprocess Ltd, UK
INTRODUCTION
Health, Safety and Environmental Protection Benchmarking
is a planned process by which an organisation compares its
health, safety and environmental processes and performance
with others to learn how to:
. reduce the incidence of injury and ill-health;
. improve environmental protection and sustainability
measures;
. improve compliance with regulations;
. reduce HSE-related costs;
. enhance Company reputation.
Benchmarking: To measure performance against
those organisations acknowledged as leaders in their field.
Benchmarking is thought to have been conceived by
mediaeval cobblers who marked a bench to ensure their
customers received a consistent size of shoe. Later, UK
Ordnance Survey created a national series of vertical datum
reference points called benchmarks that are (for those
without GPS!) still in use today. The concept of modern
industrial benchmarking was pioneered in the USA by the
Xerox Corporation, as the process of comparing their com-
pany against organisations who were recognised leaders
in their industry. Their initial motivation was to counter
the Japanese global competitive challenge of the 1970s.
The general industry understanding is that Bench-
marking is a continuous, systematic process for evaluating
the products, services, and work processes of organisations
that are recognised as representing best practices, for the
purpose of organisational improvement. Benchmarking is
now applied to a wide variety of business systems and pro-
cesses and is used in a qualitative (subjective) sense and,
increasingly, in a quantitative way by the use of Perform-
ance Indicators.
Benchmarking is particularly useful as an improve-
ment tool for business processes, and is now advocated as
an HSE best practice.
BENCHMARKING PRINCIPLES
The search for best practices is relentless. As soon as one
organisation is seen as best in class, then others will seek
to at least match, but preferably exceed, their performance.
But, what do we mean by best practice? Best Prac-
tice is a technique, method, process or activity that is gener-
ally accepted as being more effective at delivering a
particular outcome than any other, when applied to a par-
ticular condition or circumstance. The idea is that with
proper processes, checks, and testing, a desired outcome
can be delivered with fewer problems and unforeseen com-
plications. Best Practice can also be the most efficient (least
effort) and effective (best result) way of accomplishing a
180
# 2011 IChemE
task, based on repeatable procedures that have proven
themselves over time for a significant number of people.
Best Practice is not perfect practice and will evolve to
become better as improvements are developed.
Benchmarking is a structured process that allows us to
learn from others. It focuses on change (for the better!) not
just on analysis, and is generated externally from the
process users. It attempts to answer such questions as:
. Why is there a need for change?
. What are we going to change?
. When are we going to change?
. What will we be the effect of the change?
Benchmarking is a method for improving a business
process by first analysing our own process, then finding
the reasons for better performance among other comparable
processes and, finally, on the basis of the insight gained,
redesigning our process.
In practical application, Benchmarking is a perform-
ance measurement tool used in conjunction with other
improvement initiatives to measure comparative operating
performance and identify and implement Industry Best
Practices. Classification of Benchmarking falls into two
main areas, what is being compared and against whom is
the comparison being made.
Benchmarking is an important business improvement
tool. Almost any process or activity of an organisation is a
candidate for benchmarking and there are several different
categories of what can be compared (Figure 1).
Strategic Benchmarking is the comparison of the stra-
tegic choices, decisions and dispositions made by other
organisations, for the purpose of collecting and analysing
information to improve ones own strategic planning and
positioning.
Performance Benchmarking is the comparison of key
indicators of performance, with the similar performance
indicators of others. These measures might be a nationally
defined target, or a target set by a professional advisory
group, or a standard or target that has been established inter-
nally, usually by experienced professionals in the sector.
Process Benchmarking is the comparison of methods
and practices for performing business processes, for the
purpose of learning from the best how to improve our
own processes. This demands the creation and subsequent
awareness and support at the senior executive level, and
establishing dedicated benchmarking resources.
Benchmarking demands an external comparison but
that does not mean we have to operate outside our own
organisation. Internal Benchmarking is the comparison
against the best within the same organisation or corporation.
It could be comparison between departments, units, subsidi-
aries, or countries within the same company or organisation,
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 156
Figure 1. Characteristics of benchmarking types
often called benchmarking within own class. This is a
simple cost-effective first step in the process but rarely
delivers quantum leap results. The most effective bench-
marking is comparison against those similar organisa-
tions that operate within the same business sector.
Competitive Benchmarking is the direct comparison of
own performance/results against the best real competitors,
i.e. those that manufacture a similar product or deliver a
similar type of service.
Functional Benchmarking is the comparison of pro-
cesses or functions against non-competitor organisations
(e.g. customer, suppliers) that perform related tasks within
the same technological area. The big advantage of func-
tional benchmarking is that it is easier to identify willing
partners, since the information supplied is not going to a
direct competitor.
Generic Benchmarking is the comparison of own pro-
cesses against the best processes around, regardless of
industry or service. This type of benchmarking requires
more creative effort and resources and is therefore more dif-
ficult to undertake.
HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BENCHMARKING
Organisations have a legal responsibility for the health and
safety of everyone affected by their business, and for pro-
tecting the local and global environment. Additionally, an
increasing number of companies now recognise a social
responsibility for health and safety and environmental pro-
tection. Most prestigious organisations in the developed
world accept that HSE is a fundamental component of
their business and the costs of poor HSE performance are
well understood. Therefore, effective health and safety prac-
tices pay for themselves and improve the organisations
reputation with customers, regulators and employees.
HSE benchmarking is a proven means of assessing
the HSE performance of an organisation by comparing it
with that of best practice companies. HSE improvement
has many facets, but without commitment from the top,
181
Hazards XXII # 2011 IChemE
the necessary resources to make those improvements and
generate a positive culture change will not be forthcoming.
Benchmarking can have a significant influence on Corporate
HSE Governance and thus act as a catalyst for change.
Responding to HSE incidents is essential, but
preventing those incidents is, naturally, better for all stake-
holders. Pro-active safety, including Process Safety Man-
agement principles and practice allows prediction of the
most potentially serious incidents and determines way of
minimising the impact. Organisations can benchmark their
PSM processes and performance to identify and implement
improvements.
Basically, the idea and methodologies of HSE bench-
marking do not differ from any other benchmarking process;
they just concentrate on those particular aspects of the
business. We usually use the term HSE benchmarking as
referring to the identification and comparison of the HSE
performance of different organisations. This involves ana-
lysing the processes, practices, and procedures that lead to
superior HSE outcomes.
The scope of health and safety benchmarking should
encompass all areas of an organisations activities, since the
business processes are often inter-related. Some examples
of HSE processes that may be appropriate for benchmarking
are given in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Candidate HSE processes for benchmarking
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 156
DECIDING WHAT TO BENCHMARK
How often have we heard How can company XYZ do
better than us? Benchmarking can help to answer this ques-
tion. As we have already seen, there is a wide scope and
variety of areas to benchmark, so how do we decide
which areas to tackle? Benchmarking Business Processes
should concentrate on those aspects that are appropriate to
the business output or outcome, efficiency and effectiveness,
risks, resource demands and, of course, costs.
The most common types of HSE Benchmarking are
associated with Performance and Processes. Most compa-
nies maintain statistics on HSE matters, and UK law
demands rigorous record-keeping.
Three criteria can be used for selecting the process to
benchmark: First, the processs impact on the organisations
Critical Success Factors (i.e. a limited number of factors that
highly impact on the organisations HSE performance).
Second, the processs importance for the main functions
of the organisation and third, processes that represent or
impact obvious problem areas in the organisation.
Indicators that might be selected to provide a strategic
overview of HSE performance might be derived from stat-
istics or other measures covering such activities as:
. Occupational Health Policy, Plan, Procedures
. Employee Sickness Absence
. RIDDOR Policy, Plan, Procedures
. PSM Systems and Procedures
. COMAH Policy, Plan, Procedures
. COSSH Policy, Plan, Procedures
. PHA/HAZOP Policy, Plan, Procedures
. Environmental Incidents
. Sustainability Policy, Plan, Procedures
. Near Misses
The UK Health and Safety Executive maintains a
database of Health and Safety performance information,
known as the Corporate Health and Safety Performance
Index (CHaSPI) (www.chaspi.info-exchange.com). This
is a free, voluntary web-based framework for reporting
occupational health and safety, providing a series of indi-
cators of performance. It is designed to assist external
stakeholders in assessing how well an organisation is mana-
ging its risks and responsibilities towards workers and the
public and internally, it can be used as an indicator of per-
formance and improvement in occupational health and
safety management.
CHaSPI was conceived in response to research that
had shown that there was a gap in guidance for external
reporting of Health and Safety performance. It was estab-
lished in 2005 with the intention that it would be flexible,
would use a mix of generally recognised performance
measures and that its specific questions would be in line
with HSE guidance. CHaSPI offers a scored measure of
how an organisation is performing in health and safety,
acts as a common measure across sector boundaries and
enables benchmarking against other organisations and
sectors. It helps to provide those charged with Corporate
Governance to focus on workplace Health and Safety and
182
Hazards XXII # 2011 IChemE
also assists organisations in demonstrating their public
commitment to HSE.
The Index considers five key H&S areas: Health
and Safety Management, Occupational Health, Injury
Rates, Serious Incidents Rates and Employee Sickness
Absence Rates.
Whether it is through CHaSPI or some other vehicle,
having a standard reporting framework aids in benchmark-
ing and can provide a focus on HSE for an organisation
and its stakeholders. It assists HSE professionals in monitor-
ing and reporting performance indicators and allows senior
management to keep themselves updated on the organis-
ations and industrys HSE performance.
BENCHMARKING TECHNIQUES
Benchmarking is a process i.e. a series of actions, steps,
functions, or activities that bring about an end or a result,
in this case, the identification and importation of best prac-
tices to improve performance. The objective of this knowl-
edge is to learn how to design and operate processes in a
much better way than is currently happening. Benchmarking
can be divided into two parts; Practices the methods that
are used and Metrics the quantified effect of implement-
ing the practices.
The Benchmarking Wheel (Figure 3) indicates the
various stages through which benchmarking develops. It is
a wheel because the process does not stop with the improve-
ments made.
There is no official standard for Benchmarking, but
many organisations adopt an approach that involves a
number of key stages.
STAGE ONE: SELECT THE PROCESS TO BE
BENCHMARKED
The important point is that benchmarking addresses critical
issues. Why this process? Is it really this process that is most
important? The process must be properly defined and/or
narrowed down to a more manageable scope so that Bench-
marking can be effective. The process to be benchmarked
must be decided upon in agreement and in common under-
standing between the parties involved.
The activities involved in this essential initial stage
include interviewing key stakeholder groups to understand
what is important to them with respect to HSE outcomes
and clarify the key goals and objectives for the department
in the overall company business plan. Then to analyse the
major costs of the HSE function processes to the company
and prioritise one or two high cost processes as areas for
improvement. Finally to identify any specific improvements
that the department hopes to achieve.
STAGE TWO: SELECT AND TRAIN THE TEAM
Benchmarking is not a single person activity and so a cross-
functional team must be created with representatives from
key stakeholder contact groups. It is important to ensure
that team members have a basic understanding of benchmark-
ing tools and techniques as well as the processes being
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 156
Figure 3. The benchmarking wheel
examined. Include both management and non-management
representatives to give the team the advantage of different
perspectives and select team members who are enthusiastic
about improvement. It is useful to include a senior person,
capable of authorising the implementation of changes.
STAGE THREE: SELECT THE RIGHT PARTNER
Benchmarking is about establishing an environment or
network where it is accepted and legitimate to compare
one against the other. Both parties must benefit from con-
tacts that can be actively used for later studies. If bench-
marking is new for the organisation, finding a suitable
partner can be challenging, but a useful guideline is to con-
sider organisations of similar size as our own as benchmarks
for similar processes.
Finding a competitor to benchmark against is both
threatening and beneficial to both parties. However, compa-
nies are often willing to share HSE information, where they
would not consider sharing information on other business
activities. This is because improvements in health, safety
and environmental protection are seen as a benefit the com-
munity at large and not a threat to shareholder value.
STAGE FOUR: ANALYSE OUR PROCESS
It is extremely important to understand our own process.
The process has to be defined in terms of inputs and
Figure 4. Information gathering methods and tools
183
Hazards XXII # 2011 IChemE
outputs and the resources involved in the process. Often,
following this initial assessment, improvements can
already be identified. The next task is to audit the processes.
Use flowcharts to identify process components, measure
inputs and outputs of the processes and use factual data
such as incident statistics, time, costs, resources etc. to
establish a baseline model that is appropriate for compari-
son. If the HSE performance and costs can be quantified
in some realistic manner, this can be a sound basis for
benchmarking.
This step is often the most difficult since it crosses
many of the organisational boundaries and issues of cost,
resource allocation and intra-company politics play a part.
However, with tenacity, the learning process will reap its
rewards.
STAGE FIVE: GATHER COMPARISON DATA
The data gathering step covers six main activities:
1. Assessing the information needs and information
sources
2. Selecting a method for collecting data and information
(Figure 4)
3. Performing data collection and debriefing
4. Sorting the collected information and data
5. Quality control the collected information and data
6. Normalising the data.
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 156
STAGE SIX: ANALYSE GAPS
This step involves identifying differences in performance
levels and then identifying causes for these differences.
Basically, the tasks are to compare our company HSE data
with best practices data, determine which variables are
within our control for effecting change, identify the
reasons for the gaps and clarify the benefits our company
will gain by closing the gaps.
Gap analysis is a business assessment tool that allows
an organisation to evaluate the gap between its actual and
potential performance. It focuses on the efficiency of a com-
panys current operations and how to make improvements to
arrive at the companys desired state. The Gaps demonstrate
that the partners do something that renders them able to
perform better than ourselves (or vice-versa).
STAGE SEVEN: DEVELOP A PLAN FOR
IMPROVEMENT
This step involves identifying options for closing the gaps,
assessing the merits of these options and selecting the
most effective option. Then documenting an action plan
that contains the tasks to be undertaken, the person respon-
sible for each task, when each task must be completed and
who might need to be informed about the plan.
STAGE EIGHT: IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES
Change is usually unsettling for an organisation as it
involves uncertainty. Therefore, develop a clear communi-
cation plan about the change implementation and be clear
about the cooperation and approvals we require from
others in our company. Be realistic in setting deadlines for
implementation and issue regular progress reports to stake-
holders. Be prepared to amend the plan as business con-
ditions change and, when completed, ask our stakeholders
to evaluate the results.
STAGE NINE: ASSESS THE RESULTS
After the changes have been implemented and our better
practices have had time to bed in, we should assess the
results. We will be expecting a major improvement in
HSE performance so we should compare the pre- and post
change performance using the indicators developed in
Stage Four and recognise the achievement.
GETTING STARTED
Following the methodology suggested above, the bench-
marking process can add real value to the HSE function.
However, it is a daunting task to overcome corporate
inertia and implement successful HSE Benchmarking.
The first step on the road to successful benchmarking
is self-awareness. The fact that our organisation is even
considering benchmarking is a major psychological shift
in appreciating that there is room for improvement.
So, conduct a complete HSE audit, identify the major
non-conformances and devise the corresponding correc-
tive actions. Review all available injury, ill health and
184
Hazards XXII # 2011 IChemE
environmental incident data. Analyse the root causes of
persistent non-conformance. This will identify potential
process benchmarking candidates.
Next, establish performance indicators for those pro-
cesses that have been identified. There are many aspects to
this and some suggestions are given in Figure 5.
However, in developing performance indicators, be
aware of the limitations of statistics. Accident and injury
data are useful in determining real hazardous locations or
processes but are not effective in predicting potentially
hazardous locations or processes. The statistics form only
part of the story, the tip of the iceberg and therefore it is
often difficult to determine root causes from the data avail-
able. Incident and near-miss reporting provides larger
sample regimes and makes analysis more precise.
Do we need outside help? This will depend on a
number of factors such as the maturity of our HSE organis-
ation, commitment to the process, appreciation of the
issues and available resources. A consultant can assist in
many ways. He/she can guide us through the various steps
and ensure that we use the methodology effectively. He can
give impartial advice on the non-conformances identified
and help us define realistic performance indicators. Addi-
tionally, a consultant also has access to a network of contacts
that can identify suitable partners and has the indepen-
dence to act as honest broker in establishing a partnership.
FINDING SUITABLE PARTNERS
A partner is someone we benchmark ourselves against. This
is a relationship freely entered into by both parties with the
objective of mutual improvement in HSE performance.
Partners can take several forms, but fall into two primary
categories, Internal and External partners.
Internal Partners are those within our own organis-
ation and typically include other departments within the
organisation, other operating sites or other companies
within a larger group. These can be easier to establish
initially, but intra-company politics and rivalries are often
destructive.
External partners are those organisations that are
independent entities such as competitors, companies within
same industry (e.g. customers/suppliers), companies from
different industries or companies in a different geographical
region. Competitors would likely be the most effective
organisations for comparison, but the business development
aspects would understandably make this more difficult
to establish. Nevertheless, HSE is one area where competi-
tors are often willing to collaborate to improve outcomes.
The principal advantages and disadvantages of different
types of partnerships are shown in Figure 6.
To find a suitable partner, first of all develop a list of
criteria which an ideal benchmarking partner should satisfy
e.g. geographical location, products produced, technology,
size etc. Then, determine the key selection criteria in
terms of musts and wants. Prepare a list of potential
candidates from whatever sources are available, such as pro-
fessional associations, Chambers of Commerce, industry
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 156 Hazards XXII # 2011 IChemE

Figure 5. Typical HSE performance indicators

Figure 6. Advantages and disadvantages of different types of benchmarking partnership

185
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 156
organisations etc. Compare the candidates, using some type
of weighted scoring system, and select the best-suited
benchmarking partner(s). Generally, it is best to have
more than one partner, the usual being between three and
five.
The next step is to establish contact with our proposed
partner(s) and gain acceptance for their participation in the
study. This is a very sensitive procedure and needs experi-
ence and good interpersonal skills. A poor approach could
lead to loss of a potentially useful collaboration or, worse,
serious alienation between the parties. It is vital that
rapport is established, otherwise there will be a continuing
barrier to effective benchmarking.
Once informal relations are settled then an agreement
needs to be made to demonstrate our mutual commitment to
the HSE Benchmarking process. Always have a formal
written agreement that includes Terms of Reference and ter-
mination provisions. There is a European Benchmark Code
of Conduct that is useful guidance in this respect (www.efq-
m.org/en/PdfResources/Benchmarking Code of Conduct
2009.pdf).
WORKING WITH A PARTNER
It is essential that, first of all, we develop a basic working
relationship. Be realistic dont try to do too much in one
go. When exchanging information we need to make sure it
is genuinely comparable e.g. we may try to compare stat-
istics, but if we record these data in different ways it will
not be a valid comparison. Respect our partner; remember
confidentiality and give and take equitably. During contact
with partners, we should do our homework in advance,
keep to agreed topics and show awareness of the Bench-
marking Code of Conduct. Make sure we really understand
what they do, how they do it and why it is better. This is the
information we will need to learn.
The Terms of Reference in the Agreement are prob-
ably quite general so we may have to agree various resp-
onsibilities with our new partner. Decide what we want and
identify who, how, when and possibly where we want it.
Appoint a Project Manager to steward the process, especially
partner relations, cost and progress against milestones.
Agree a timeframe and a budget. Prepare a Responsibility,
Accountability, Consultation, Information (RACI) matrix.
Share information about our own processes and, if
asked, share the results of our benchmarking study. How-
ever, it is essential to ensure that information transfer is not
commercially or security confidential. When visiting part-
ners, we should observe good business protocol, friendly
but formal. Be sure to thank our partner for sharing their
knowledge.
Following the contacts with our partners, it is impor-
tant to maintain the momentum generated by the bench-
marking efforts within our own organisation. Hold regular
review meetings about the study and monitor progress.
Ensure actions are identified and completed on time and
have a close out review of the study. Determine if more
studies are necessary and appropriate for the partnership.
186
Hazards XXII # 2011 IChemE
In benchmarking against a partner, there are some
ethical and legal aspects that need to be considered. Bench-
marking is not about getting as much information as poss-
ible from our partners, without giving anything in return,
so we must treat our partners as we would wish them to
treat us. Benchmarking is conducted in cooperation with
others for the purpose of improvement, which in turn
could distort competitive conditions and therefore, in
some circumstances, benchmarking could be viewed by reg-
ulators as anti-competitive. On the other hand, there have
been no known legal disputes on the use of benchmarking.
In any event, we should avoid discussing any commercially
sensitive issues. If there is any doubt whether an activity is
legal or ethically justifiable, we must refrain from it.
IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
Because no one person knows everything, the idea behind
benchmarking is learning from others; not slavishly
copying their actions of others. We must ensure that:
1. Lessons learned are captured in an easily understood
and easily accessed manner
2. The causes of the lessons are fully understood and
agreed by concerned parties
3. The knowledge gained is translated into value-adding
action
4. The learning is communicated within the organisation
This learning must be translated into an improvement
plan, recognising that the processes must be appropriate to
our own organisation. When devising an HSE Improvement
Action Plan, we should ensure that the actions are SMART
(Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timely). Hold
specific people accountable and get commitment from the
action owner on the implementation. Set time-certain
feedback periods.
Agreeing an Action Plan is only part of the process, it
is useless if the plan is not implemented. If the actions
are straightforward then they may be manageable in the
normal course of business. However, if the actions are
complex, with many cross-functional interfaces, it is useful
to prepare an execution plan that identifies deliverables,
resources needed, costs incurred and timetable. Because
the HSE function has wide-ranging implications for all
aspects of the business, it is often necessary to have such a
plan for implementing new or amended HSE processes.
We have now benchmarked our process. We have
learned from our partner and improved our process.
However, this is just the beginning. Organisations should
constantly strive for improvement and benchmark other pro-
cesses. By continuous improvement we can truly become
best-in-class.
CONCLUSION
In the process industries, because of the nature of the
materials and technologies, HSE becomes paramount and
needs a special focus on continuous improvement. It
SYMPOSIUM SERIES NO. 156
Figure 7. Benefits of HSE benchmarking
should involve analysing and upgrading the processes, prac-
tices, and procedures that lead to superior HSE outcomes.
Benchmarking is part of such improvement.
Here are some pointers to success. First of all, we
need senior management commitment, support and
resources for all the steps involved. An open and partici-
pative approach to health, safety and environmental protec-
tion, including a willingness to share information with
others within and outside our organisation is an essential
prerequisite. Organisations must have the ability to identify
their strengths and weaknesses and to compare data on a
meaningful apples with apples basis. We need to consider
the practicalities of what we can achieve and should focus or
attention on those processes that are most likely to benefit
from improvement, those that contribute significantly to
the organisations Critical Success Factors for HSE.
Finally, we must do our homework proper planning and
preparation is vital.
Whilst Corporate Management might like to think that
its organisation uses best practice, the inevitable questions
they will ask are what will it cost? and how long will it
take? Benchmarking is not a quick fix and should be
judged over the longer term. It is not heavy on resources
but does require a trained, dedicated team. Typically, a
single process review might require a total of 200 man days
of effort. There will also be some additional costs if a consult-
ant is assigned. Obviously, if several processes are analysed
together, there will be economies of scale, but we should not
187
Hazards XXII # 2011 IChemE
overreach ourselves, especially in the early stages. Regarding
timescale, we must be realistic. To go through all the phases
will require months, not days, of non-continuous effort. The
implementation and assessment stages are likely to take
longer to establish and it is important to ensure that there is
a genuine improvement, or if not, why not?
A major challenge to HSE benchmarking is the diffi-
culty in justifying the effort of a benchmarking study
because the real costs and expected benefits are difficult
to demonstrate. HSE issues can be complex, and it is not
always possible to allocate certain effects to certain specific
measures. Also, psychologically, it is often difficult for
Directors to accept that their company is not best-in-class,
or anywhere near it. Benchmarking might be seen by
some as having the negative effect of exposing management
weaknesses rather than the more positive potential of per-
formance improvement.
In the face of all these hurdles, why should we do
HSE Benchmarking? The primary benefit is a performance
improvement that leads to a reduction in HSE incidents.
Additionally, there are considerably more benefits arising
from HSE improvement, some of which are listed in
Figure 7. There are potential reductions in compliance and
other HSE-related costs, and an enhancement of the organ-
isations reputation.
The advantages of being seen as best-in-class have
wide-reaching implications over most aspects of the
business.